Honest question for the board.......

[Tobytone]

You live in an alt universe.....the claim that the Iranian people dont support the Regime was always wrong, and has never been more wrong than now.

Sorry dude, you're delusional as usual. You're a drone listening to pure propaganda. Right now the regime is eating itself alive. They are literally fighting each other. Trump did more damage to them by doing this 'cease fire' then he has in the last month. Of course you're such an idiot you'll continue to believe the bullshit you follow.

Here's the fun part, time will tell. Actual results and coming events will determine which narrative was correct. There are only two outcomes in the months to come. The regime survives and begins to rebuild and successfully squashes the coming rebellion or they are overthrown and the Crown Prince facilitates a transition to implement the government of Iran's choosing.

I know which one will happen. We'll see who is right. So far, you've never been right about a single prediction or claim. If you have, show me one.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You’re too caught up in the narrative of East versus West, with China teaming up with Russia and Iran to challenge an increasingly corrupt and decaying American empire.

But the truth is, all the Chinese care about is whether they can build the world's most advanced technology across the board, improve people's lives, and boost their overall national strength.

That Cold War script you have in mind—or the idea of one superpower taking over from another—just doesn't fit China's interests.

Sam Huntington wrote about this 30 years ago in his book "Clash of Civilizations" specifically mentioning Western culture, Islam and Eastern culture. Eventually, I think we'll simply be a blended world, but clearly human beings have some "issues" to work out. LOL

Clash of Civilizations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Clash of Civilizations is a thesis that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post–Cold War world...

...Huntington offers six explanations for why civilizations will clash:

1. Differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most importantly, religion. These fundamental differences are the product of centuries and the foundations of different civilizations, meaning they will not be gone soon.
2. The world is becoming a smaller place. As a result, interactions across the world are increasing, which intensify civilization consciousness and the awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.
3. Due to economic modernization and social change, people are separated from longstanding local identities. Instead, religion has replaced this gap, which provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
4. The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, a return-to-the-roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations. A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Western countries that increasingly have the desire, the will and the resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.
6. Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness. Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Sam Huntington wrote about this 30 years ago in his book "Clash of Civilizations" specifically mentioning Western culture, Islam and Eastern culture. Eventually, I think we'll simply be a blended world, but clearly human beings have some "issues" to work out. LOL

Clash of Civilizations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Clash of Civilizations is a thesis that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post–Cold War world...

...Huntington offers six explanations for why civilizations will clash:

1. Differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most importantly, religion. These fundamental differences are the product of centuries and the foundations of different civilizations, meaning they will not be gone soon.
2. The world is becoming a smaller place. As a result, interactions across the world are increasing, which intensify civilization consciousness and the awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.
3. Due to economic modernization and social change, people are separated from longstanding local identities. Instead, religion has replaced this gap, which provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
4. The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, a return-to-the-roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations. A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Western countries that increasingly have the desire, the will and the resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.
6. Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness. Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization.

Could have been, but the West turned up demonic, unfit to continue.

 

[Jarod]

That Im sure some are far too dishonest to answer so instead will simply avoid. Here goes...........

In you're opinion......Would Iran destroy OUR civilization if it had the means? Stay on topic now,...not asking about the morality of it or if they should or shouldn't , and I certainly am not asking if the United States who has the means should or shouldn't. A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.



Thank You for you're attention to this matter.

Stone

I don’t know, the general populace has no such desire, as a whole.

I suspect the governing class likely has a majority that would like to destroy us.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don’t know, the general populace has no such desire, as a whole.

I suspect the governing class likely has a majority that would like to destroy us.

No doubt they want the West to go away but they are not stupid and won't commit suicide by starting a war they can't win.

 

[Cypress]

BUT if (they) could get away with it!!!

Explain exactly how Iran would "get away" with destroying the United States of America, given that we have a nuclear arsenal guaranteed to reduce Iran to smouldering ash?

 

[Jack Grealish]

Sam Huntington wrote about this 30 years ago in his book "Clash of Civilizations" specifically mentioning Western culture, Islam and Eastern culture. Eventually, I think we'll simply be a blended world, but clearly human beings have some "issues" to work out. LOL

Clash of Civilizations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Clash of Civilizations is a thesis that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post–Cold War world...

...Huntington offers six explanations for why civilizations will clash:

1. Differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most importantly, religion. These fundamental differences are the product of centuries and the foundations of different civilizations, meaning they will not be gone soon.
2. The world is becoming a smaller place. As a result, interactions across the world are increasing, which intensify civilization consciousness and the awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.
3. Due to economic modernization and social change, people are separated from longstanding local identities. Instead, religion has replaced this gap, which provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
4. The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, a return-to-the-roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations. A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Western countries that increasingly have the desire, the will and the resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.
6. Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness. Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization.

The clash of civilizations theory seems very intuitive—it feels like a video game, one side against another. But here's how I see it: how do you even define a civilization? The truth is, as a Chinese person speaking from my own experience, I don't think there's a huge difference between Chinese people and Americans.

Chinese kids start learning English at age nine. People watch the NBA and Hollywood movies—even though Marvel has gotten so bad lately that Hollywood isn't as appealing as it used to be. People also follow U.S. politics closely—elections, major events, all of it. All those issues—immigration, fentanyl, high crime rates, gun violence, racism, inflation, expensive healthcare, identity politics, abortion, religion, and all kinds of strange ideologies—regular Chinese people see all of it.

So where exactly is this clash between Chinese civilization and American civilization? What even is Chinese civilization? In the context of modern life, what does Chinese civilization actually refer to? I honestly don't know.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Explain exactly how Iran would "get away" with destroying the United States of America, given that we have a nuclear arsenal guaranteed to reduce Iran to smouldering ash?

MAGAts looooove hypotheticals when they do it but scream bloody murder if a non-MAGAt does it. Weird.

As it is, Iran can't do it even if they had an arsenal of ICBMs since, like Russia or China launching on us, it would be MAD; mutually assured destruction.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The clash of civilizations theory seems very intuitive—it feels like a video game, one side against another. But here's how I see it: how do you even define a civilization? The truth is, as a Chinese person speaking from my own experience, I don't think there's a huge difference between Chinese people and Americans.

Chinese kids start learning English at age nine. People watch the NBA and Hollywood movies—even though Marvel has gotten so bad lately that Hollywood isn't as appealing as it used to be. People also follow U.S. politics closely—elections, major events, all of it. All those issues—immigration, fentanyl, high crime rates, gun violence, racism, inflation, expensive healthcare, identity politics, abortion, religion, and all kinds of strange ideologies—regular Chinese people see all of it.

So where exactly is this clash between Chinese civilization and American civilization? What even is Chinese civilization? In the context of modern life, what does Chinese civilization actually refer to? I honestly don't know.

Americans are lazy. #2 always tries harder.

 

[Cypress]

MAGAts looooove hypotheticals when they do it but scream bloody murder if a non-MAGAt does it. Weird.

As it is, Iran can't do it even if they had an arsenal of ICBMs since, like Russia or China launching on us, it would be MAD; mutually assured destruction.

It's not even a hypothetical.

It's a loaded question that completely depends on creating a fabricated fantasy reality that doesn't exist and never will exist. Not one MAGA moron here can precisely explain how Iran would "get away" with destroying the United States, without ensuring their own destruction.

 

[Stone]

It's not even a hypothetical.

It's a loaded question that completely depends on creating a fabricated fantasy reality that doesn't exist and never will exist. Not one MAGA moron here can precisely explain how Iran would "get away" with destroying the United States, without ensuring their own destruction.

Its not a question of if they COULD do it,....the question is does the Iranian leadership WANT to do it. Even before the war it would seem they most certainly wanted/wished they could do it. Why cant you be honest ?

 

[Cypress]

Its not a question of if they COULD do it,....the question is does the Iranian leadership WANT to do it.

Your mental-masturbation question is based on psychologically mind reading people you've never met and can't even name?? lol

Our entire system of jurisprudence, law, regulation, international norms is based on what somebody actually does, not on what they think about doing.

There are probably people in your life that wished you dead. But it had no legal consequences and didn't adversely affect your life.

The Iranians would theoretically benefit by completely wiping out Kurdish civilization, but they've never chosen do do so.

I think the Iranians wouldn't really give a a shit about us if we weren't involved in the Middle East in terms of bankrolling Israel, and propping up conservative Arab gulf monarchies.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Its not a question of if they COULD do it,....the question is does the Iranian leadership WANT to do it. Even before the war it would seem they most certainly wanted/wished they could do it. Why cant you be honest ?

Like you WANT to cheat on your wife with the office redhead you've talked so much about? Be honest.

 

[Cypress]

Like you WANT to cheat on your wife with the office redhead you've talked so much about? Be honest.

View attachment 80643

Exactly.
Who gives a shit what somebody wants to do.
If Stone wants to fuck the chick at the office, but resists the temptation to do so then it's not adultery as we define it, and he is not held accountable for having those thoughts.

 

[Stone]

Like you WANT to cheat on your wife with the office redhead you've talked so much about? Be honest.

View attachment 80643

LMAO!!!! Can you say OBSESSED? Poor poor little dutchie,....nobody loves him.

 

[martin]

The thread question is one of fundamental morality. Islam forbids murder irrespective of religious faith. On the other hand, the originator of this thread and many like him wouldn't mind seeing the population of Iran vanish.

 

[Stone]

Your mental-masturbation question is based on psychologically mind reading people you've never met and can't even name?? lol

So then by you're way of thinking all those signs that LWers carry at No Kings protests mean absolutely NOTHING. Right? There is absolutely no way that anyone can determine what people are thinking just from the signs they carry and the actual words that come out of their mouths. You MUST actually believe that because The Iranian Govt has been hoisting the DEATH TO AMERICA banner for going on 50 years now,...you dumb fuck you. LOL is right.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

LMAO!!!! Can you say OBSESSED? Poor poor little dutchie,....nobody loves him.

I am done posting anything to Dutch

 

[Stone]

Another day on the old recliner hey Dutchie boy?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The thread question is one of fundamental morality. Islam forbids murder irrespective of religious faith.

What the MAGAt bigots and other assorted pinheads forget is that there are almost 2 Billion Muslims in the world which is comparable to the number of Christians. It's the fastest growing religion of the world, mostly in poor nations. Like Christianity, there is a small percentage of twisted fucks that pervert their religion for immoral purposes.